On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 07:41:36PM -0500, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: > If there are no objections, I will add a header indicating I release the > various device tree files I wrote into the public domain.
I would greatly prefer not calling new contributions to LinuxCNC "public domain". As we have seen, this leads to FUD, including some people claiming that it's possible that none of LinuxCNC is protected by copyright. If you want to apply a liberal license which is GPL-compatible, I believe the BSD-without-advertising, MIT, and zlib licenses are frequently suggested for this purpose. I singled out the files I mentioned because they looked to me "like code". Traditionally, "configuration files" in our tree have not had any copyright notice or license and I don't know why that is. It absolutely would not *hurt* for configuration files to have license statements, because when it comes to configuration files, we should be just as clear that people have the right to use, modify, and redistribute them as we are when it comes to the source code. I personally prefer that each individual file have a copyright notice and license grant where possible, because a file is often a fundamental unit that people copy around. This follows the GPLv3's suggestion that "[i]t is safest to attach [terms and conditions] to the start of each source file"; the GPLv2's wording is just about identical. Jeff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. Consolidate legacy IT systems to a single system of record for IT 2. Standardize and globalize service processes across IT 3. Implement zero-touch automation to replace manual, redundant tasks http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=51271111&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
